Re: Hanford Site Cleanup Standards

[The Wilsons <pnwnatives@netscape.net>]

It is unfortunate that these problems were not addressed before the mess 

was made.  History tends to repeat its self though, one only need look 

at the build up of junk in space.  Speaking of legislation, there was an 

article in our local paper about an effort to reclassify the sludge in 

the tanks at Hanford and waste at some other locations from "high level 

waste" to something else to make it possible to leave it in the tanks 

and just cap the area.   I don't remember the tanks being rated for long 

term storage of  anything.



If the Hudson were to become "more contaminiated" with PCB's, would that 

necessarily mean that more PCB's were being added, or that the amount of 

contamination would remain the same and just be distributed 

differently.  To be more contaminated then of course none of the 

existing PCB's would be removed.  Certainly GE would not be responsible, 

or the scientists and technologists that devised the method of cleanup.  

Or would they?



Bob



sjd@swcp.com wrote:



>Sept. 2

>

>Bill Lipton wrote:

>

>    "The current doctrine of environmental accountability is not limited to

>the nuclear industry. Look at what GE is facing, having to clean up the

>Hudson River where there are PCB's from its operations."

>

>    Yes, and I have heard that disturbing these deposited PCBs may cause the

>Hudson to become more contaminated with PCBs than it already is.  Who will

>be accountable for that?  Certainly not the tree-huggers who demanded it,

>or the regulators who crammed it down GE's throat.

>

>    He wrote:

>

>    "Legislation and public opinion have determined that current conditions at

>Hanford, and several other sites, are not acceptable, and must be

>remediated.  You may think otherwise, but that's largely irrelevant."

>

>    Science and reason have been trumped by legislation and public opinion --

>whatever the latter is.   Is it the people who can make the most racket,

>and make the most extravagant (and false) claims?  Right or wrong are

>irrelevant -- the legislator is king.

>

>    Bill also wrote:

>

>    "Lesson learned:  When undertaking a potentially hazardous activity, it's

>not 'good enough' to comply with the current regulations."

>

>    What do you suggest, Bill?  That commerce and industry comply with

>regulations that haven't been written?  That aren't even a gleam in the eye

>of a bottom-feeding lawyer?  How many companies are you willing to see

>forced into bankruptcy because they couldn't predict what some

>lawsuit-loving treehugger, regulator, or legislature might do in the

>unforseeable future?

>

>Steven Dapra

>sjd@swcp.com

>

>

>************************************************************************

>You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

>send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

>radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

>You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/

>

>  

>



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/